Public Bills: Exchanges Between the Houses

Baroness Amos: On 11 May I moved a Motion, "That it is desirable to vary the normal practice of the House when considering Commons reasons and amendments, whereby no further consideration of a Bill can take place in the event that
	(i) the Lords insists on an amendment;
	(ii) the Commons insists on its disagreement to that amendment; and
	(iii) neither House has offered alternative proposals;
	to allow the House to consider the Commons reason and amendment to the [Planning and Compulsory Purchase] Bill".
	This Motion was necessary because, in the final stages of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, it appeared that, unintentionally, a "double insistence" had been reached on one Lords amendment. In moving this Motion, I stated that "I have invited the Clerks of both Houses and Parliamentary Counsel to consider jointly the lessons learnt from this episode and how best to avoid such a situation in the future. In particular, they will look at the practice of considering amendments in the other House in groups or packages and the procedural consequences which can follow". I undertook to report back to the House. This Statement fulfils that undertaking. Following consideration by a working group of Clerks and Parliamentary Counsel, the Clerks of both Houses have agreed the following statement of position:
	Before a Bill can become an Act of Parliament, the two Houses have to agree on the text. The procedure for reaching agreement appears simple in concept, but can become extremely complicated in practice because of the political context. It may involve, for example, one House having to back away from an entrenched position.
	Following Third Reading and passing of the Bill in the second House, a list of amendments made by that House is compiled and sent back to the first House for their consideration. If the first House agrees to all of the amendments made in the second House, the Bill is ready for Royal Assent. If it does not, it returns the Bill to the second House, with reasons for disagreeing to the amendments, and/or with further amendments. The second House then considers the reasons and amendments offered by the first House. The exchanges between the two Houses continue until
	(a) agreement is reached, or
	(b) the Session is brought to an end, without agreement having been reached, or
	(c) "double insistence" is reached, which normally results in the Bill being lost.
	The term "double insistence" is used to describe a situation where one House insists on an amendment to which the other has disagreed, and the other House insists on its disagreement. If this point is reached, and neither House has offered alternatives, the Bill is lost. This doctrine is set out in Erskine May, 23rd edition, page 639, which, however, goes on to say "there is no binding rule of order which governs these proceedings in either House, and, if there is a desire to save the Bill, some variation in the proceedings maybe devised in order to effect this object".
	In the case of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, two amendments (Lords Amendments Nos. 1 and 3) were still under discussion in the final exchanges between the two Houses. In the Commons, the two amendments were treated as forming a package, and a single amendment (1C) was considered by the Commons to be an amendment in lieu of both Lords amendments. But the reason given for disagreeing to Lords Amendment No. 3 made no mention of the link between Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 3. Accordingly, the Lords Clerks advised that double insistence had been reached on Amendment No. 3, and they advised the Government that it would be necessary to move a Motion to vary the normal practice of the House, and thus allow further consideration of the Bill. A Motion was agreed to on 11 May.
	We have been asked to consider the lessons which can be learnt from these exchanges.
	By way of background, we note that the speed and complexity of exchanges between the two Houses has increased markedly in recent years. This is due partly to political circumstances, and partly to technical advances in text handling, which have made possible extremely rapid turnaround of Bills. Increased speed inevitably carries the risk of misunderstanding or error, and reduces the time available for consideration of the possible consequences of each House's decisions.
	Particularly in the Commons, the practice has developed of packaging and grouping amendments during these final stages1. Packaging and grouping are useful ways of signalling perceived connections between amendments. But these are techniques for organising debate within each House: neither House can be expected either to discover, or to feel bound to follow, arrangements made by the other for the consideration of amendments. Messages between the two Houses, and reasons for disagreement, are ways of communicating perceived connections between amendments, but these in turn depend upon the terms of the Motions in each House. We consider that the wording of Motions could be improved, in order to make clearer the links between the different elements of a "package" of amendments. We also think that the wording should be improved, in order to make the action of one House clearer to the other and, where necessary, to identify any package.
	1 In this note, "grouping" refers to the practice (in both Houses) whereby related amendments are debated together, but the fate of individual amendments in the group is decided separately. "Packaging" refers to the practice (currently used only in the House of Commons), in the final stages of a Bill's passage, where a number of related amendments may be grouped together for the purposes of both debate and decision. So, for example, a motion on a "package" might invite the House to agree to amendments (a), (b) and (c) to a Bill, in lieu of Lords Amendments 42 to 44 and 61.
	As an example, in a case where one House insists on disagreement to more than one amendment and offers an alternative only to one, intending that single alternative to encourage the other House to reconsider all the relevant amendments, the most certain way of avoiding the need in future for a Motion disapplying the double insistence rule will be to ensure that a single Motion to disagree is laid before the House along the lines of "that this House insists on its disagreement to Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 but proposes the following amendment in lieu of Amendment No. 1". The other House will then be able to identify the group of amendments as a package.
	We are in agreement that in such a case the resultant message to the other House would not amount to a double insistence, whether or not the House receiving it chose to "unpackage" the amendments for the purposes of debate.
	From a practical point of view, we consider that the packaging of amendments has advantages, and that there could be benefits from bringing the practices of the two Houses more closely together in this respect. With this in mind, the Clerk of the Parliaments will invite the Lords Procedure Committee to consider changes to the practice of the House, to allow more flexibility in dealing with Commons amendments which have been packaged.
	Although, in many cases, it is likely that the two Houses will be prepared to consider as a whole a package of amendments which has been received from the other House, there will be other cases when either House may wish to consider the elements of a package separately for political reasons. It is not the purpose of procedure to provide political solutions, but rather to facilitate the consideration of options. Each House remains the master of its own procedures, and where there is disagreement about packaging, it will be possible, as at present, for the other House to consider amendments separately to the extent desired".

Gender Equality Strategy

Baroness Amos: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I wish to advise the House that on 14 August 2004, I will announce a public consultation exercise in respect of a proposed gender equality strategy, the Government's high-level policy for tackling gender inequalities in Northern Ireland.
	This consultation follows our fulfilment of a commitment given by the previous Northern Ireland Executive, in its Programme for Government (2001–04) to bringing forward and implementing a cross-departmental strategy to tackle gender inequalities.
	Copies of the Consultation Paper Gender Matters—Towards a Cross Departmental Strategic Framework to Promote Gender Equality for Women and Men 2005–2015 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland: Corporate Plan and Business Plans

Baroness Amos: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I have today arranged for the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland corporate plan 2004–07 and business plan 2004–05 document to be placed in the House Libraries. This document will also be made available on the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland website at www.osni.gov.uk.

Invest Northern Ireland: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03

Baroness Amos: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	The annual report and accounts of Invest Northern Ireland for the financial year ending 31 March 2003 were deposited in the Libraries of the House today.

Youth Council for Northern Ireland: Accounts 2001–02

Baroness Amos: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	The 2001–02 accounts of the Youth Council for Northern Ireland were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 21 July 2004.

Northern Ireland: Insolvency Service Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03

Baroness Amos: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	In accordance with Articles 372 and 358(4) of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 copies of the Insolvency Service annual report and accounts for year ending 31 March 2003 have been placed in the Libraries of the House today.

Tourism Ireland

Baroness Amos: I have today placed in the Library papers relating to decisions that have been taken during the period 1 October 2003 to 5 July 2004 which relate to the North/South Implementation Bodies and Tourism Ireland Ltd under the terms of the Exchange of Notes of 19 November 2002 (Cmnd 5708).

Military Low Flying

Lord Bach: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The amount of low flying training carried out in the UK low flying system (UKLFS) during the training year April 2003 to March 2004 was the minimum required for aircrew to reach and maintain their ability to fly at low level. The number of low flying training hours booked in the UKLFS (excluding the rotary wing dedicated user areas, where different booking arrangements apply) decreased by 1,996 hours, in comparison with the previous training year.
	We are committed to ensuring that low flying training is spread as widely as is practically possible across the UK so that no single area is too burdened. However, due to a variety of reasons, population distribution and geographical and climate restrictions, it is unavoidable that some areas of the country may experience more activity than others.
	I have today placed in the Library of the House a report giving a detailed account of the low flying training that has taken place in the UK low flying system for the training year April 2003 to March 2004. The report is also available on the MoD website: www.mod.uk/issues/lowflying.

Defence Housing Overseas

Lord Bach: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Last year, the Ministry of Defence carried out a business process review of the management and delivery of defence housing. The review recommended merger between Defence Estates and the Defence Housing Executive, the agency responsible for the management and delivery of defence family housing in Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland or abroad. As phase 2 of the study, following the above merger, a further review is being undertaken of the management and delivery of family housing for UK forces overseas and in Northern Ireland.
	The aim of the review is to examine the function, role, operation, funding and organisation of defence housing in Northern Ireland and overseas. It will seek to identify the most efficient and effective process to support the management and delivery of defence housing in those areas.
	The review team will consult with a range of stakeholders during the course of the review including single-Service customers, trade unions, other government departments and other relevant bodies. The Ministry of Defence is interested also to hear the views of other organisations or individuals who would like to make a contribution to the review. Those wishing to do so should send their contribution by 31 August 2004 to:
	Review Team for the Management and Delivery of Defence Housing Overseas Ministry of Defence Directorate of Management and Consultancy Services Main Building Whitehall SW1A 2HB
	Or by e-mail to pat.rodger614@mod.uk.
	I will advise Parliament of the outcome of this consultation and of any final decisions that are reached.

Duke of York's Royal Military School: Key Targets 2004–05

Lord Bach: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The following key targets have been set for the Duke of York's Royal Military School for financial year 2004–05.
	1. To achieve an average GCSE points score per 15 year-old pupil of 61.
	2. To achieve 90 per cent of 15 year-old pupils gaining five or more passes graded A* to C at GCSE.
	3. To achieve 30 per cent of GCSE passes at grades A* or A.
	4. To achieve an average GCE points score per candidate of 268.
	5. To achieve 35 per cent of GCE passes at grades A or B.
	6. To achieve a pupil per capita cost of no more than £13,545.
	7. To generate income of at least £800,000.
	8. To achieve at least 310 applications for September 2004 intake.

Armed Forces' Pay Review Body

Lord Bach: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Geoffrey Hoon) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am pleased to announce that I have reappointed Dr Anne Wright as a member of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body for a second three-year term, commencing March 2005. This appointment has been conducted in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments' guidance on appointments to public bodies.

Woolwich Station

Lord Bach: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	A review has been undertaken of the defence requirement for the retention of Woolwich station. The review took account of our future ground-based air defence requirements, of the strategy for the rationalisation of the defence estate and of the recommendations of the Lyons review. It has concluded that the Ministry of Defence should relocate units currently based in Woolwich to sites yet to be decided. This will allow the Woolwich site to be made available for non-defence use. Further work is now needed on implementing this decision. All personnel affected have today been advised of our intention and they and their union representatives will be consulted fully as our plans develop.

Project ISOLUS

Lord Bach: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 4 February 2004 I informed the House of Commons that Ministry of Defence-owned coastal sites were being considered for their suitability to store radioactive material from nuclear-powered submarines under Project ISOLUS. That exercise is now complete and one site, the Royal Armaments Depot (RNAD) at Coulport in Dumbartonshire, has been found suitable in principle. One of the industry bidders, SERCO Assurance, in partnership with Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd and RWE Nukem Ltd, is seeking to use an MoD site in its proposal and will now be asked if it wishes to incorporate Coulport into its bid, as will the other bidders.
	I want to make it clear that this does not mean that Coulport has been selected as the storage location—there is still much work to be done before a final decision is made. Nor does it mean that industry has to incorporate the site in any bid. It does, however, mean that those other coastal sites included in the review, some of which have been the subject of considerable speculation, have been assessed as unsuitable and are not storage options.
	Coulport has, of course, previously been named in an industry bid, and is one of the sites on which we consulted the public last year. I do not envisage setting in train further consultation at this stage. If, however, any of the proposals from industry change in substance as a result of the inclusion of Coulport we will instigate a further public consultation exercise. As at all stages of the ISOLUS process, safety, in terms of the general public, the workforce and the environment, will be a key factor in all of our decisions. The concerns expressed by the public during the events at the various sites named in each of the industry bids have been captured by the 50 recommendations contained in the Lancaster University report on the consultation exercise. These recommendations are currently being considered and, following consultation with other government departments and devolved administrations, a government response will be published later this year.
	The exercise to identify potential MoD sites has concentrated on those by the coast in view of the current preferred option of land storage of cut out intact reactor compartments. One hundred and eighteen sites were assessed against the following criteria: sufficient spare capacity to accommodate a storage facility; long-term security of tenure; development of a storage facility that is feasible and cost-effective, would not breach existing agreements with MoD, NATO or other countries, and would not inhibit the site's current principal operational function; access from the sea, capable of accepting heavy loads; and no safety hazard, such as flooding, coastal erosion and whether the site is used for handling and storing explosives, or where unexploded ordnance has been identified, for which there is no cost-effective engineering solution.
	In parallel with the detailed consideration of the outcome of the public consultation, and informed by the recommendations flowing from it, evaluation of the various industry outline proposals will be completed. We expect to be able to announce early next year how the project will be taken forward. Moreover, the Government remain committed to a further round of public consultation before any final decisions are taken.

Quick Reaction Alert Aircraft

Lord Bach: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 23 April 2004 (Official Report, cols. 30–31WS) my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced that Typhoon aircraft would be based at RAF Coningsby, FAR Leeming and RAF Leuchars. I have now decided that RAF Leuchars will be the second Typhoon base after RAF Coningsby. This is in order to meet the requirement for quick reaction alert (interceptor) aircraft cover for the UK. RAF Coningsby and RAF Leuchars are already established as bases for this purpose, which will continue after Typhoon is introduced.

NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04

Lord Warner: The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency's annual report and accounts have been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

Medicines Commission and Medicines Act Advisory Bodies: Annual Reports 2003

Lord Warner: We have received the annual report of the Medicines Commission and Medicines Act advisory bodies for 2003, which has been laid before Parliament today in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968.
	Bound volumes have been placed in the Library containing the 2003 reports of the Medicines Commission, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Advisory Board on the Registration of Homoeopathic Products, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission, the Independent Review Panel on Advertising, the Independent Panel for Borderline Products and the Veterinary Products Committee.
	We are glad to acknowledge the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Medicines Act advisory bodies and thank them for the time and effort dedicated in the public interest to this important work.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970: Section 22 Report

Lord Warner: My honourable Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Community has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.
	The annual report for 2003 is being published today and copies have been placed in the Library. The report covers research and development work carried out by or on behalf of any government department in relation to equipment that might increase the range of activities and independence or well-being of disabled people.
	The current report places such research in the context of the National Health Service improvement plan, and outlines the role of assistive technology in making independent living easier for older people and people with disabilities. The report describes the wide range of government-funded projects supporting the development, introduction and evaluation of assistive technology.

NHS Pensions Agency: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04

Lord Warner: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.
	I have approved the National Health Service Pensions Agency annual report and accounts for 2003–04, which have today been laid before the House of Commons in accordance with the requirements of Section 7 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.
	Copies have been placed in the Library.

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04

Lord Warner: We have received the annual report and accounts of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for 2003–04 which has been laid before Parliament today in accordance with the requirements of Sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

Meat Hygiene Service: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04

Lord Warner: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.
	The 2003–04 annual report and accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service were laid before Parliament today.
	Copies will be placed in the Library, but formal printing and publication will not take place for another 6 to 9 weeks, pending preparation of a version in the Welsh language, as required by the Welsh Language Act.

Health Service Bodies: Accounts 2003–04

Lord Warner: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health (Mr John Hutton) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	For the health service bodies listed as follows, their annual accounts and any accompanying Comptroller and Auditor General reports have today been laid before the House of Commons pursuant to Section 98(1C) of the National Health Service Act 1977. Copies have been placed in the Library.
	Dental Practice Board Dental Vocational Training Authority Family Health Services Appeal Authority Health Development Agency Health Protection Agency National Blood Authority National Clinical Assessment Authority National Institute for Clinical Excellence National Patient Safety Agency National Treatment Agency NHS Appointments Commission NHS Information Authority NHS Litigation Authority NHS Logistics Authority NHSU Prescription Pricing Authority Retained Organs Commission UK Transplant

Health and Social Care Standards: Planning Framework 2005–08

Lord Warner: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has tabled the following Written Ministerial Statement today.
	I am publishing today National Standards, Local Action: Health and Social Care Standards and Planning Framework 2005–06—2007–08, incorporating Standards for Better Health. This will support the National Health Service and social care in taking forward the agenda set out in the NHS Improvement Plan, setting out a framework for continuing quality improvement.
	Much progress has already been made across the NHS. Waiting times are falling, mortality rates for the major diseases are down and there are more NHS staff treating NHS patients. The development of clinical governance, the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the publication of national service frameworks and the establishment of independent inspectorates for health and for social care have set a framework for safe, high-quality care. This is underpinned by the NHS Improvement Plan, which sets out a programme for further progress and clear improvements in health outcomes and patient care.
	Standards for Better Health and National Standards, Local Action together set out a new approach that will deliver this agenda, with reduced national targets underpinned by robust standards to drive up quality and safety. NHS patients are entitled to care that is safe and effective and Standards for Better Health sets out the standards that all providers and commissioners of NHS care are expected to meet to deliver safe and effective care.
	The standards-driven approach set out in these two documents establishes an integrated framework for performance improvement, setting the parameters for local plans and targets, independent inspection by the Healthcare Commission and CSCI and performance assessment and ratings.
	Standards for Better Health is published by the Secretary of State for Health under Section 46 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003. Standards for Better Health follows a formal consultation on draft proposals in the spring and defines standards covering the full spectrum of healthcare from public health through to acute care, which have been developed with two principal objectives. First, they include a set of core standards which provide a common set of requirements applying across all healthcare organisations to ensure that the health services that are provided are both safe and of an acceptable quality.,/hw2
	Secondly, there is a set of developmental standards providing a framework for continuous improvement in the overall quality of care people receive. Setting developmental standards in this way ensures that the extra resources being directed to the NHS are used to help to raise the level of performance measurably year on year.
	Standards for Better Health will apply with immediate effect to all healthcare organisations in England, including NHS foundation trusts. All those providing or commissioning NHS healthcare in England will have to take them into account when planning or commissioning healthcare services.
	The Healthcare Commission will measure performance against the standards and take progress against national and local targets developed in line with National Standards, Local Action into account in its annual reviews and assessments of healthcare by (and for) each NHS body in England, including NHS foundation trusts. By delivering on targets that relate directly to healthcare standards, NHS bodies will be able to demonstrate to the commission that they are performing well against those standards.
	In Standards for Better Health, for the first time the Government are setting out a comprehensive statement of the standards that NHS bodies and providers of NHS care are expected to meet. Standards for Better Health will act as a key driver for quality improvement throughout the NHS, but one aim has been to clarify and to reduce the large number of requirements and standards that have in the past been set centrally, either directly from the department itself or by its arm's length bodies. Some of the department's own standards and requirements are currently under review and the review of arm's length bodies will provide an opportunity to change some of the requirements that they currently impose.
	The development of the new high-level standards represents the first step toward simplifying and rationalising the expectations on the service. Taken alongside the reduced requirements in National Standards, Local Action this will give organisations greater flexibility for local innovation, underpinned by a strong focus on safe, effective healthcare and improvements in the outcomes that matter most for patients and service users driving forward the programme set out in the NHS Improvement Plan.
	Copies of National Standards, Local Action have been placed in the Library.

Building Regulations

Lord Rooker: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I have today published two consultation documents. The first of these covers our proposals for amending the building regulations energy efficiency provisions (Part L) and implementing the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD). The second describes our proposals for amending the guidance in Approved Document F that supports Part F, Ventilation, of the building regulations. Both consultation documents contain draft regulatory impact assessments.
	Driving up the energy efficiency of our buildings is critical to our success in achieving the carbon emission reduction targets in the energy White Paper and our energy efficiency action plan and will contribute to our goals for developing more sustainable communities.
	Raising performance standards and introducing requirements for efficiency in the use of boilers and air conditioning systems will not only make a difference in the drive to tackle climate change, they will also help to create warmer, healthier homes and more comfortable and productive workplaces.
	The proposals for building energy performance certification requirements will enable prospective purchasers and tenants to be more aware of energy performance whenever buildings are constructed, sold or rented out.
	Energy used in buildings is responsible for roughly half the UK's carbon dioxide emissions. Wasting energy costs money whereas measures such as loft insulation, boiler replacements and more effective controls often pay for themselves within a few years.
	One of the cornerstones of saving energy is to make building structures more airtight to minimise heating or cooling energy losses due to air leaking through gaps in the structure. This is addressed in the amendments to Part L. However, it is also essential to ensure there is sufficient controlled ventilation to maintain good indoor air quality to protect the health of the building's occupants. This is one of the roles of Part F, and is why Approved Document F has been revised in conjunction with Part L.
	The guidance on ventilation systems has been expanded to cover more options, and changed from a prescriptive to a performance-based approach that should encourage innovation.
	A new section in the proposed guidance deals with the design of smoking rooms in workplaces. The new edition of the approved document will also take into account the commitments made in the public health White Paper to be published later this year.
	The consultation documents will be sent to several hundred organisations that have an interest in the energy efficiency of buildings and/or ventilation. Paper copies have also been placed in the Libraries of the House of Commons and House of Lords, and the text can be downloaded from the ODPM website.
	The consultation period for both sets of proposals closes on Friday 22 October 2004. Following this my officials will work with the Building Regulations Advisory Committee to consider how the proposals might need to be modified to take account of the opinions expressed in the consultations, and (for Part F) the commitments that may be made in the public health White Paper. I am aiming, however, to lay the legislation needed to implement the directive and amend the building regulations and approved documents by July next year, and to achieve our goal of bringing them into effect by the end of December 2005.

Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities

Lord Filkin: This Statement is being made on a joint basis, together with my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families, the Department for Education and Skills, and my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Women and Equality, the Department for Trade and Industry.
	I am pleased to report that consultation document Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities (Cm 6273) is today being presented to Parliament.
	Parental separation affects many children and their families. When handled well the adverse impact on their children can be minimised. When things go badly the effects can be very damaging for children, both in the short and longer terms. These risks can be reduced if parents can resolve parenting issues in an amicable fashion. Because of social changes, more children experience parental relationship breakdown than a generation ago: 150,000 to 200,000 parental couples separate each year. In addition, fathers are, in general, more actively involved in caring for and helping to raise their children.
	Currently, only 10 per cent of separating couples with children have had their contact arrangements ordered by the courts, though the number of court applications for contact is rising each year, with the courts in England and Wales making 67,000 contact orders last year. The majority of applications are made by fathers, reflecting the fact that most children live with their mothers following separation.
	I am clear that there is scope for considerable improvement in the way in which the family justice system, together with its associated services, deal with contact disputes. This view is widely shared among judges, legal practitioners and voluntary organisations. Some fathers' groups assert that the courts and the law are biased against them. I do not accept this view. However, what I do accept is that major changes are needed, in order to ensure that court and other interventions into family life become much more effective in helping to secure effective resolutions which are in the interests of the child. I strongly believe that in most cases it is very much in the interests of the child to have an on-going relationship with both parents. By improving the system, the Government can make their proper contribution to enabling more non-resident parents to enjoy meaningful ongoing relationships with their children.
	Following the most careful consideration across government, we have determined that it would not be helpful, in any practical sense, to revise the principles that currently underpin the central piece of legislation—the Children Act 1989, in particular, the "paramountcy" principle, which makes the child's welfare the court's first consideration. This primary legislation, as interpreted and defined by the case law, already makes clear that both parents are equal and that both should continue to have a meaningful relationship with their children after parental separation, so long as it is safe. We fully accept that we need to make changes to the current system, and to support parents in settling their disputes, by providing more effective help for them to do so.
	This consultation document puts forward proposals which are intended to help those undergoing parental separation to resolve their disputes more effectively so that children's needs are better met. They are based on the recognition that the primary responsibility for caring for children rests with parents rather than with the state. Their aims are three-fold. First, they aim to minimise conflict and support good outcomes, both for children and their parents, preferably without recourse to the courts. Secondly, they aim to improve parental access to those services which can enable them to reach agreements. Thirdly, they aim to improve legal processes and service delivery for those who do go to court. While most of our proposals are focused on the 10 per cent of parents who turn to the courts, a number of them are intended to be relevant to all parents who separate.
	In developing these proposals, we have listened carefully to what parents and children have said. The consumer strategy work of the Department for Constitutional Affairs involved drawing together evidence from research and conducting workshops and focus groups with parents. The key message from the parents was that they wanted help and support to navigate the emotional and practical issues they faced during the breakdown of their relationship.
	We have also consulted widely with the key stakeholders, including parents' groups, academics, voluntary organisations and service providers, including the judiciary, legal professionals and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). It is this approach that will ensure rapid improvements at local level. Alongside the publication of this consultation document, the president of the Family Division and the chief executives of the Court Service and of CAFCASS are today writing to all judges, court service staff and CAFCASS officers to begin the process of change.
	The consultation period, which begins today, will run until 1 November 2004. Comments and discussions about the proposals will be welcome. The Government plan to implement many of these proposals quickly and robustly and to pursue the legislation that is needed as soon as possible.

Spending Review 2004: Meeting Regional Priorities

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My honourable friend the Economic Secretary (Mr John Healey) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	2004 Spending Review: Meeting Regional Priorities is being published today and copies are available in the Libraries of the House.
	This document meets the Treasury's commitment to set out how the 2004 Spending Review, announced to Parliament on 12 July 2004, responds to the issues and priorities identified in the regional emphasis documents jointly prepared by the Government Office, regional development agency and regional chamber in each English region.
	The document reaffirms the Government's commitment to improving regional economic performance. It summarises the next steps the Government are taking to ensure that the evidence base supports the Government's regional policy agenda, and sets out the SR04 response to input from the regions as well as plans for devolving further resources and responsibilities in every region.

National Statistics: Annual Report 2003–04

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My honourable friend the Financial Secretary (Ruth Kelly) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The National Statistics annual report has been published today. A number of copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The report can also be obtained free of charge on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/national–statistics/documentation.asp.

Office for National Statistics: Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My honourable friend the Financial Secretary (Ruth Kelly) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Office for National Statistics annual report and accounts for 2003–04 are being laid before Parliament today. They contain an assessment of how the Office for National Statistics performed against its key targets in 2003–04. Electronic copies are freely available on the National Statistics website and a number of copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.